Enhanced Recovery After Colo-Rectal Surgeries (ERAS) V.S Conventional Care A systematic review and meta-analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background ERAS programs are not only used in abdominal surgeries, they are also used in cardiothoracic, gynecology, urology, orthopedic, and neurosurgery. Many authors and surgeons worldwide have been adapting this program, also trying to modify it due to its promising outcomes and it’s low damage toit’s continence. Objective To present an updated assessment of perioperative care in colorectal surgery from the available evidence and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) group recommendations. Patients and Methods We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statement. PRISMA and MOOSE are reporting checklists for Authors, Editors, and Reviewers of Meta-analyses of interventional and observational studies. According to International committee of medical journal association (ICJME), reviewers must report their findings according to each of the items listed in those checklists. An electronic search was conducted from the inception till March 2019 in the following bibliographic databases: Medline via PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify relevant articles. We used different combinations of the following queries: ("Colorectal Surgery"[Mesh]) AND ("Enhanced recovery" OR "conventional care"). The search have been done with no limit regarding the year publication or language. Results In the present study, we searched Medline via PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar from their inception till March 2019. The search retrieved 2861 unique records. We then retained 41 potentially eligible records for full-texts screening. Finally, 28 reports of 25 RCTs were included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis Conclusion ERAS was proven to be feasible, minimally invasive, cheap, relatively easy, which is safe and effective at the same time. This program can be ideal for patients undergoing elective colo-rectal surgery, yet more studies should be conducted in Egypt to compare results regarding different approaches of this program with longer follow up and randomization of patients.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.